pre-empting grief to start the War

[Doug Millison]

Terrance:
>Right, we need to grieve together, no sense trying to
say, as many Lefty
>propagandists are, that the government has stolen our
time of grief. 

Then why didn't Bush and his war-mongering cronies let
the country grieve before crowing about war?  Why not
allow a period of mourning and grief? They didn't do
that, i.e., they stole our time of grief and put in
its place a time of calling for violent retribution
and stirring up the emotions that would lead people to
support their bloody plans.  They could have instead
waited, let us grieve,  then let us make a decision
about what to do next, on the basis of good
information and time to think, instead of forcing a
commitment to military strikes while still stunned
with grief and anger and ramming through an spending
package to get the engines of war started.  


P.S.  Where, exactly, do you situate this "boundary"
between life and art, and how do you justify fixing
the boundary there and not somewhere else? 

I find it amazing that people sensitive enough to
respond to Pynchon's art can apparently put the books
back on the shelf, ignore the critique of War and the
business of War they contain, and support a drugstore
cowboy president who promises more of the same,
pushing us towards the same Armageddon (you think the
terrorists don't have nuclear, chemical, or biological
weapons) or that, apparently, so impressed Pynchon? 

P.P.S. Reconciling with enemies is difficult and
time-consuming but not impossible, cf. the several
legally instituted processes of investigation,
adjudication, and reconciliation that are currently
underway helping enemies come together in peace and
with justice at various places in the world. 
Admittedly, it's a lot more difficult than launching a
rocket. But we have examples that demonstrate it's 
possible.  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com